Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Commonwealth v. Stenhach | 514 A.2d 114 (1986)
In Commonwealth versus Stenhach, two brothers attempting to protect client confidentiality ran afoul of accusations of obstruction of justice.
Recent law school grads George and Walter Stenhach were practicing in partnership as part-time public defenders for Potter County. They took on the defense of Richard Buchanan, who was charged with first-degree murder. Former police officer Daniel Weidner was appointed as an investigator.
At a confidential conference, Buchanan explained that the victim had attacked him with two knives. The victim died after he was shot, hit by Buchanan’s car, and struck by Buchanan’s rifle. The stock of the rifle had broken off. Buchanan drew a map showing where to find the items he disposed of.
George and Walter sent Weidner out to retrieve Buchanan’s items. Weidner brought back the broken rifle stock.
The Stenhachs stuck the stock in a paper bag in a desk drawer in their office and didn’t tell the prosecution they had it. Weidner warned them repeatedly that they were violating the law by withholding the rifle stock. The Stenhachs insisted, however, that they had a legal duty to protect Buchanan’s confidential disclosures and that the stock was protected by attorney-client privilege.
The judge at Buchanan’s trial disagreed. He ruled that the privilege didn’t apply to physical evidence and ordered the Stenhachs to produce the rifle stock.
After Buchanan was convicted, the district attorney charged the Stenhachs with hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence.
The trial court convicted them. The Stenhachs appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They contended that they had no duty to deliver the rifle to the prosecution until the court ordered them to do so. They also argued that the statutes against hindering prosecution and tampering with evidence were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and that their convictions were therefore a denial of due process.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 36,700 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
